After the National Review compared him to a convicted child molester, climatologist Michael Mann decided to fight back. He encourages his colleagues to do the same.

In a still from An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore stands next to a graph projecting climate change. (Lawrence Bender Productions)

Science has never really been the detached, apolitical world we sometimes imagine it to be. Just think of Galileo. But in the era of climate change, the politicization of science has reached an entirely new level.

No one knows that better than Michael Mann, a climatologist who directs the Earth System Science Center at Penn State and helped to create the famous "hockey stick" graph, which shows a dramatic spike in atmospheric carbon dioxide beginning during the Industrial Revolution. In recent years, Mann has become a primary target for those seeking to deny the science of climate change. His work has been investigated (and subsequently upheld) multiple times, his emails hacked (as part of the so-called "Climategate" scandal) and subpoenaed, his life and his family threatened.

This summer, when the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the National Reviewcompared him to convicted child molester Jerry Sandusky and accused him of academic fraud, Mann decided to take action. He filed a lawsuit [PDF] against the two organizations and some of their employees, accusing them of defamation.

Mann sees the lawsuit as simply a part of the changing responsibilities of a climate scientist -- in this politically overheated environment, he argues, it's not enough anymore to simply do research. While others discuss ways to make science less partisan, Mann says it's time to recognize that, whether we like it or not, science is now a thoroughly political front.

What do you hope to achieve with this lawsuit?

Ultimately, this is about saying, "enough is enough." For more than a decade, vested interests and those who work for them have been trying to discredit me in a cynical effort to discredit the science of climate change. They want to attack this iconic graph that my coauthors and I published more than a decade ago, and to go about it by going after me personally. I've developed a thick skin. But at a certain point, I think you have a responsibility to your fellow scientists, to the scientific community, to stand up against these sorts of dishonest assaults.

Why file a lawsuit instead of using some other tactic or response?

There is a right to free speech in the United States; I, like all of my colleagues, value that. It's essential -- it's part of what makes this a great country. But, as the law recognizes, there's a limit to free speech. You can't make baseless and reckless accusations of fraud against scientists.

The allegations that have been made against me by climate change deniers--by industry-funded front groups -- for more than a decade have been shown to be baseless. The National Academy of Sciences reviewed our work and affirmed our conclusions; the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has affirmed our conclusions. In response to allegations of misconduct against me and my various colleagues, the inspector general of the National Science Foundation found that they were baseless and dismissed the case. So the highest scientific authority in the land has definitively spoken to this. The allegations of my detractors -- of fraud, of misconduct -- are completely without any foundation, and they're libelous.

Describe some of the ways these accusations have affected your life.

I've had prominent fossil fuel industry-funded politicians try to have me fired from my job, to have me investigated by Congress. The Tea Party attorney general from Virginia, Ken Cuccinelli, issued a subpoena for all of my emails with more than 39 different climate scientists around the world. It was rejected by the lower court and then by the state Supreme Court. I and other climate scientists have seen our email addresses and personal information published by prominent right-wing media figures, who directed people towards us to write us threatening letters and emails.

It's been a constant distraction that I've had to deal with for more than a decade while I continue to try to do what it is that I love doing--which is science, and educating and advising the next generation of scientists.

Was climate science always so politically charged?

The furthest thing from my mind was ever finding myself in the public sphere participating in some huge societal debate. It's not why I went into math and science. It was only when our research yielded this curve, the hockey stick that I found myself suddenly in the crosshairs of climate change deniers. In my book, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars, I describe the transition I underwent from a pure science nerd, happiest in the anonymity of my lab, to somebody who recognized that there's a need for scientists to do more than just their research.

A major part of the scientific process is continued inquiry and uncertainty and peer review -- scrutinizing findings to make sure they're right. Climate change skeptics often say that this is really what they're doing. What's the difference?

There are so many areas where there is still real uncertainty, where there is legitimate debate that occurs in good faith. That's expressed in the peer-reviewed literature and in the debates that scientists have with each other at scientific meetings. We don't know, precisely, what the sea level rise will be over the next century. We don't know, precisely, what the impacts of climate change will be on extreme weather at regional scales, to the point where we can really inform the process of adaptation to climatic changes that we're already committed to. We could be having a good-faith public discussion about the real uncertainties that exist in the science and what their implications are.

But unfortunately, instead of productive debate, our detractors have chosen a smear effort to discredit climate science. The fact that the House Republicans voted unanimously to overturn the EPA's finding that climate change is a public-health issue--you can't have that good-faith debate if one of the two parties involved simply denies that the threat even exists.

The discussion over climate change has been poisoned. We saw it play out in the presidential debates--the topic of climate change never even came up. I think that's symptomatic of the fact that even those who do believe we need to do something about this feel some degree of fear. If they stake out a position, a proactive position with respect to doing something about climate change, they will be attacked with tens of millions of dollars of dark money from the Koch brothers and other dishonest actors.

To me that's what's most disturbing, and it's part of a much larger problem in our societal discourse: the way vested interests can spend tens of millions to influence political campaigns and try to buy our democracy.

So what solutions do you hope to see?

Perhaps it would be malpractice on my part not to stress the importance of voting. We have to hold our policy makers accountable for representing our interests -- and those of our children and our grandchildren, with respect to the type of planet we leave behind for them -- rather than the narrow interest of certain corporate lobbies, like the fossil fuel industry lobby, who don't want to see anything done about this problem.

The only way to ensure that we have that good-faith debate in our politics about what to do about this problem is to make sure that we elect politicians of good faith. There's nothing more important a person can do right now than expressing his or her views at the voting booth. Obviously, citizens can do more than that: They can write letters to the editor, they can try to influence public opinion by expressing their views to others. But right now, the most important thing people can do is to vote in this election.

The way to combat the politicization of science is ... more politicization?

It's not by our own choosing--that's a very important distinction. But when you find yourself in a street fight, you have to defend yourself, you have to fight back. That's why I think you see austere institutions like the journal Nature, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, hundreds of members of the National Academy of Sciences--all of these very conservative institutions have come out with very powerful statements in recent years blasting those who are engaged in dishonest efforts to smear scientists and to try to advance anti-scientific causes through attacks against mainstream science.

The fact is that even some of the most conservative institutions within the scientific community have come out and said, "Enough is enough. This just isn't acceptable. It's not okay to use political tactics in a cynical effort to discredit science that might be inconvenient to powerful vested interests like the fossil fuel industry." The fact that such prominent and conservative scientific institutions have come out with statements to that effect speaks volumes. I think, in part, it's responsible for the fact that you now see a lot more climate scientists speaking out and defending the science against attack.

Most Popular

Writing used to be a solitary profession. How did it become so interminably social?

Whether we’re behind the podium or awaiting our turn, numbing our bottoms on the chill of metal foldout chairs or trying to work some life into our terror-stricken tongues, we introverts feel the pain of the public performance. This is because there are requirements to being a writer. Other than being a writer, I mean. Firstly, there’s the need to become part of the writing “community”, which compels every writer who craves self respect and success to attend community events, help to organize them, buzz over them, and—despite blitzed nerves and staggering bowels—present and perform at them. We get through it. We bully ourselves into it. We dose ourselves with beta blockers. We drink. We become our own worst enemies for a night of validation and participation.

Even when a dentist kills an adored lion, and everyone is furious, there’s loftier righteousness to be had.

Now is the point in the story of Cecil the lion—amid non-stop news coverage and passionate social-media advocacy—when people get tired of hearing about Cecil the lion. Even if they hesitate to say it.

But Cecil fatigue is only going to get worse. On Friday morning, Zimbabwe’s environment minister, Oppah Muchinguri, called for the extradition of the man who killed him, the Minnesota dentist Walter Palmer. Muchinguri would like Palmer to be “held accountable for his illegal action”—paying a reported $50,000 to kill Cecil with an arrow after luring him away from protected land. And she’s far from alone in demanding accountability. This week, the Internet has served as a bastion of judgment and vigilante justice—just like usual, except that this was a perfect storm directed at a single person. It might be called an outrage singularity.

Forget credit hours—in a quest to cut costs, universities are simply asking students to prove their mastery of a subject.

MANCHESTER, Mich.—Had Daniella Kippnick followed in the footsteps of the hundreds of millions of students who have earned university degrees in the past millennium, she might be slumping in a lecture hall somewhere while a professor droned. But Kippnick has no course lectures. She has no courses to attend at all. No classroom, no college quad, no grades. Her university has no deadlines or tenure-track professors.

Instead, Kippnick makes her way through different subject matters on the way to a bachelor’s in accounting. When she feels she’s mastered a certain subject, she takes a test at home, where a proctor watches her from afar by monitoring her computer and watching her over a video feed. If she proves she’s competent—by getting the equivalent of a B—she passes and moves on to the next subject.

There’s no way this man could be president, right? Just look at him: rumpled and scowling, bald pate topped by an entropic nimbus of white hair. Just listen to him: ranting, in his gravelly Brooklyn accent, about socialism. Socialism!

And yet here we are: In the biggest surprise of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, this thoroughly implausible man, Bernie Sanders, is a sensation.

He is drawing enormous crowds—11,000 in Phoenix, 8,000 in Dallas, 2,500 in Council Bluffs, Iowa—the largest turnout of any candidate from any party in the first-to-vote primary state. He has raised $15 million in mostly small donations, to Hillary Clinton’s $45 million—and unlike her, he did it without holding a single fundraiser. Shocking the political establishment, it is Sanders—not Martin O’Malley, the fresh-faced former two-term governor of Maryland; not Joe Biden, the sitting vice president—to whom discontented Democratic voters looking for an alternative to Clinton have turned.

The new version of Apple’s signature media software is a mess. What are people with large MP3 libraries to do?

When the developer Erik Kemp designed the first metadata system for MP3s in 1996, he provided only three options for attaching text to the music. Every audio file could be labeled with only an artist, song name, and album title.

Kemp’s system has since been augmented and improved upon, but never replaced. Which makes sense: Like the web itself, his schema was shipped, good enough,and an improvement on the vacuum which preceded it. Those three big tags, as they’re called, work well with pop and rock written between 1960 and 1995. This didn’t prevent rampant mislabeling in the early days of the web, though, as anyone who remembers Napster can tell you. His system stumbles even more, though, when it needs to capture hip hop’s tradition of guest MCs or jazz’s vibrant culture of studio musicianship.

Some say the so-called sharing economy has gotten away from its central premise—sharing.

This past March, in an up-and-coming neighborhood of Portland, Maine, a group of residents rented a warehouse and opened a tool-lending library. The idea was to give locals access to everyday but expensive garage, kitchen, and landscaping tools—such as chainsaws, lawnmowers, wheelbarrows, a giant cider press, and soap molds—to save unnecessary expense as well as clutter in closets and tool sheds.

The residents had been inspired by similar tool-lending libraries across the country—in Columbus, Ohio; in Seattle, Washington; in Portland, Oregon. The ethos made sense to the Mainers. “We all have day jobs working to make a more sustainable world,” says Hazel Onsrud, one of the Maine Tool Library’s founders, who works in renewable energy. “I do not want to buy all of that stuff.”

During the multi-country press tour for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation, not even Jon Stewart has dared ask Tom Cruise about Scientology.

During the media blitz for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation over the past two weeks, Tom Cruise has seemingly been everywhere. In London, he participated in a live interview at the British Film Institute with the presenter Alex Zane, the movie’s director, Christopher McQuarrie, and a handful of his fellow cast members. In New York, he faced off with Jimmy Fallon in a lip-sync battle on The Tonight Show and attended the Monday night premiere in Times Square. And, on Tuesday afternoon, the actor recorded an appearance on The Daily Show With Jon Stewart, where he discussed his exercise regimen, the importance of a healthy diet, and how he still has all his own hair at 53.

Stewart, who during his career has won two Peabody Awards for public service and the Orwell Award for “distinguished contribution to honesty and clarity in public language,” represented the most challenging interviewer Cruise has faced on the tour, during a challenging year for the actor. In April, HBO broadcast Alex Gibney’s documentary Going Clear, a film based on the book of the same title by Lawrence Wright exploring the Church of Scientology, of which Cruise is a high-profile member. The movie alleges, among other things, that the actor personally profited from slave labor (church members who were paid 40 cents an hour to outfit the star’s airplane hangar and motorcycle), and that his former girlfriend, the actress Nazanin Boniadi, was punished by the Church by being forced to do menial work after telling a friend about her relationship troubles with Cruise. For Cruise “not to address the allegations of abuse,” Gibney said in January, “seems to me palpably irresponsible.” But in The Daily Show interview, as with all of Cruise’s other appearances, Scientology wasn’t mentioned.

A leading neuroscientist who has spent decades studying creativity shares her research on where genius comes from, whether it is dependent on high IQ—and why it is so often accompanied by mental illness.

As a psychiatrist and neuroscientist who studies creativity, I’ve had the pleasure of working with many gifted and high-profile subjects over the years, but Kurt Vonnegut—dear, funny, eccentric, lovable, tormented Kurt Vonnegut—will always be one of my favorites. Kurt was a faculty member at the Iowa Writers’ Workshop in the 1960s, and participated in the first big study I did as a member of the university’s psychiatry department. I was examining the anecdotal link between creativity and mental illness, and Kurt was an excellent case study.

He was intermittently depressed, but that was only the beginning. His mother had suffered from depression and committed suicide on Mother’s Day, when Kurt was 21 and home on military leave during World War II. His son, Mark, was originally diagnosed with schizophrenia but may actually have bipolar disorder. (Mark, who is a practicing physician, recounts his experiences in two books, The Eden Express and Just Like Someone Without Mental Illness Only More So, in which he reveals that many family members struggled with psychiatric problems. “My mother, my cousins, and my sisters weren’t doing so great,” he writes. “We had eating disorders, co-dependency, outstanding warrants, drug and alcohol problems, dating and employment problems, and other ‘issues.’ ”)

The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse. Here’s what that means for its strategy—and for how to stop it.

What is the Islamic State?

Where did it come from, and what are its intentions? The simplicity of these questions can be deceiving, and few Western leaders seem to know the answers. In December, The New York Times published confidential comments by Major General Michael K. Nagata, the Special Operations commander for the United States in the Middle East, admitting that he had hardly begun figuring out the Islamic State’s appeal. “We have not defeated the idea,” he said. “We do not even understand the idea.” In the past year, President Obama has referred to the Islamic State, variously, as “not Islamic” and as al-Qaeda’s “jayvee team,” statements that reflected confusion about the group, and may have contributed to significant strategic errors.

An attack on an American-funded military group epitomizes the Obama Administration’s logistical and strategic failures in the war-torn country.

Last week, the U.S. finally received some good news in Syria:.After months of prevarication, Turkey announced that the American military could launch airstrikes against Islamic State positions in Syria from its base in Incirlik. The development signaled that Turkey, a regional power, had at last agreed to join the fight against ISIS.

The announcement provided a dose of optimism in a conflict that has, in the last four years, killed over 200,000 and displaced millions more. Days later, however, the positive momentum screeched to a halt. Earlier this week, fighters from the al-Nusra Front, an Islamist group aligned with al-Qaeda, reportedly captured the commander of Division 30, a Syrian militia that receives U.S. funding and logistical support, in the countryside north of Aleppo. On Friday, the offensive escalated: Al-Nusra fighters attacked Division 30 headquarters, killing five and capturing others. According to Agence France Presse, the purpose of the attack was to obtain sophisticated weapons provided by the Americans.